It would not surprise me. I still am baffled he says 150 ohm primaries to 600 ohm secondaries Is a 4:1 and says it gives him 6dB of gain. The 6dB part is true but I have always had those referred to as 1:2 setup transformers.

« Last Edit: May 23, 2020, 06:28:33 AM by pucho812 »

Logged

You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is.

There's a number of things in this article that need comment."Users often just pass audio through an 1176 without any compression—just for gain with transformer coloration. " This is just ignoring the fact that, even in bypass signal goes through the full circuit, including the FET.

"output transformers from Neve input (1073/1084) modules ... are readily available NOS (new-old-stock) for about $50 each."More like $500...

"you can leave the switches out and wire them for either 600-ohm or 1:1 ratio or at 4:1 with 150-ohm primaries for about 6dB of gain"Indeed, as has been previously noted, this just shows marginal familiarity of the writer with engineering terms.

I'll leave the writer with the responsibility of his words "Magically Colorize Your Sound ... warm, dense sound ... glue and air, an indescribable filling in of sonic gaps ... some of that analog glue" ... mixing colour I've already expressed myself on this, as they are utterly meaningless to me, but I understand many people hear what they want to hear in these subjective qualifiers. I'm a heathen...

"A good transformer in the mix path will change the low frequency’s density"When you connect a transformer that measures at 100 ohms at 40Hz, no doubt the LF density will be affected!LO1166 (that's the "output transformers from Neve input (1073/1084) modules") is designed to be driven by the very low output impedance of a power amp; that's what the BA283AV output amp is. When inserted in a standard line output, the xfmr is used way outside its intended zone.No doubt it is audible.

I have no doubt the writer is a successful SE, with a glorious palmares, and most of his other writings are pertinent, although addressed to the very beginners, but this one should be taken with discernment.As always, IMO.

Logged

Who's right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is what's right or wrong.Star ground is for electricians.

Some questionable things in the article, but doesn't "gain with transformer coloration " imply the whole circuit? Iirc the fet should be high impedance in bypass so mostly negligible.

For me the best quality transformers have the least coloration. But sometimes the color is what you want, so it's always a balancing game. I favor transformerless high quality minimal component signal path for accurate capture, as you might want for classical music. Rock n roll bring on the transformers.

Whatever is causing the colouration he claims to hear or the change in low frequency density it is NOT saturation.

For DIY he suggests using

Quote

Carnhill VTB 2281 High-Level Output (un-gapped) rare (NOS)

No need to buy NOS because Carnhill still makes them on the same old production line and sells them for £25.

The he says:

Quote

These are the output transformers from Neve input (1073/1084) modules used in Series 80 consoles and other products.

which is simply not true. They were different type entirely and gapped as well.

The VTB2281 is a great transformer. You can hit it with +26dBu at 20Hz and it does not saturate - I know I have measured it. What might just about possibly be audible is the Barkhausen effect, which is known to increase in material that has been mechanically stressed over time so is possibly higher in old transformers.

That is true as well. I think the difference is our interpretation of the authors intent and the phrase "gain with transformer coloration". I think your point is the author was incorrectly attributing ALL the color (non-linearity) to the transformers.

I certainly agree there are other non-linearities contributing to the sound.

Disclaimer: I have no association to the author of the article and don't know the commenter Adam Kagan either. I just read the article today. All my opinions/beliefs are formed on personal experience only.-

To Abbey, JR and all who promote their mantra of linearity, digital superiority;

Are you tired of this conversation?

Do you think bands such as The Beatles would be as palatable using virutal mics (i.e. Slate Digital), clean as a whistle preamps (completely flat frequency response), digital verb, digital echo and digital plugin processing? It would be interesting to hear the material if it had been done that way too. But then, there would be comparisons and feedback. Uh oh.

Do you think there was no charm to how their old records sound? What about all the countless records/cds/albums from our history.. the pre-digital era. Was it really so bad?

Put the songwriting aside for a second, Fairchild compressors (and many others) are all over their sound, along with many other tube and transformer riddled circuits, tape saturation, wobble, noise, track bleed, crosstalk, and on and on and on. Last I checked Fairchild compressor itself has 10 tubes and, what, 6 or 7 transformers?

There's no mythology that the EMI console and the processing units used sounded really nice to a lot of people. Full of transformers, full of tubes, full of character. It's easily recognizable. How on earth was this a limitation??

Software developers have tried, come somewhat close, but in my opinion have failed to model that stuff in plugin form.

Without 'dirt' in general, artifacts, distortion, and the barrel loads of compression/limiting, how tolerable would mixes be when you turn the volume knob up? The slow speed of older euqipment, that was just unbearable on all the old classic records right?

I would absolutely love to hear a re-recording of The Beatles with just virtual mics, flat frequency preamps, and no processing. Zero. Not even limiting. See what you get out the other end. No editing either. No overdubs. You'd find out pretty damn quick it'd be like 100 CFL light bulbs shining in yours, and your date's face just as you're about to have your first kiss. Too revealing, very uncomfortable. Who really needs 4K video either? The news anchor looked fine in 640x480. Hendrix did fine with a Strat and dirty pedals. Hitting tape, that was just unbearably bad sounding stuff wasn't it? :p

There's no mythology to this stuff. If someone here bought all the Andrew Scheps gear that's for sale, they wouldn't be Andrew but they would be very hard pressed to make bad sounding audio through it. They wouldn't automatically become a great engineer, or have great songs, or interesting whatever, but no one can really argue the equipment he invested in is by in large very good stuff. Exceptional really.

But it's riddled with imperfection, and inefficient power/high running costs... and oh yeah, functionality. Function and sound, objectivity and creative subjectivity go hand in hand. If I said I was nervous, which I'm not right now, but if I was, how would you prove that I felt that way? If someone cried because a vinyl record remind him/her of their parents, or their childhood/wildhood, how would you prove it? If someone who plays bass says they can feel the instrument in their chest while playing it, how would you prove it? If a piece of audio/music is a little on the vague or "cloudy" side in the way it's produced, it's usually a little more nostalgic and reminiscent of a memory. We don't need all the detail to feel something. That's why people like the stuff, it's not some mystery or myth. If something brings back the energy they felt in the room or how they remember feeling it at a point in time, why not accept that? Feel honoured even that people cherish the handy work and craftsmanship.

I think you just like to get a debate going... and I suppose that's fine but what are you trying to convince us all of? JR considers digital summing/combining objectively superior, and that too is an opinion. It is subjective to say linearity means it's better. The whole premise of better, is subjective. What does it mean to be better? What's the context, what are the properties of better? Who decided/decides on those properties? I can't for the life of me figure out what the argument/constant discussion is about..

Digital everything is sharp, clean, and uncomfortable in my opinion. It's lacking in nearly every way, in my opinion - except that is does have some good properties too, that can't be denied. Transformers however "transparent" or "coloured" always do something to the audio. Paired with the fancy circuits designers came up with, and both start to do more to the audio in quite interesting and interactive ways. Why fight against what happens naturally and what the vast majority of people say they like??

Go ahead, mock these factless opinions. ps. I'm giving you this line on a platter so you can quote it and be as clever as ever in refuting what I'm saying.

The question over whether analog mix buses were obsolete came up in another thread recently. And then user Newmarket came along and posed the question whether that's really true. No one replied. Well, does anyone really need to say if they're still valid? If they do, I'll answer, it's a YES -they are still valid. If all this stuff wasn't valid you could just shut Group DIY down permanently.

Transformers, dirty gain blocks, slow releases, all this "mythology" is all still valid.

Do I think a Fairchild compressor is worth over 30,000 pounds? In no way, shape or form do I think it's worth that kind of money. But it is a beautiful thing what it does to the audio signal. Is this overpricing at the heart of where you guys are coming from? Thinking it's just over hyped and over priced? I can't argue about that, really. But I mean, look how much Slate hypes his ultra flat virtual mic collection and plugins.

Would I buy Andrew's gear if I could afford it? I'd have to think about it, but I would be unlikely to buy it even if I could afford it. I would be tempted though, and put a facility on the ocean's edge, in a remote location for tracking/mixing. I don't think it's necessary to own all that analog kit, it just isn't necessary for most people in most situations. But I do think it's great sounding equipment. Transformers are a big part of it, but as I said in other threads, and as you well know, it's a very complex interaction of a lot of parts.. not just transformers.

Disclaimer: I have no association to the author of the article and don't know the commenter Adam Kagan either. I just read the article today. All my opinions/beliefs are formed on personal experience only.-

To Abbey, JR and all who promote their mantra of linearity, digital superiority;

Are you tired of this conversation?

after a few decades it gets repetitive.

Quote

Do you think bands such as The Beatles would be as palatable using virutal mics (i.e. Slate Digital), clean as a whistle preamps (completely flat frequency response), digital verb, digital echo and digital plugin processing? It would be interesting to hear the material if it had been done that way too. But then, there would be comparisons and feedback. Uh oh.

Do you think there was no charm to how their old records sound? What about all the countless records/cds/albums from our history.. the pre-digital era. Was it really so bad?

Put the songwriting aside for a second, Fairchild compressors (and many others) are all over their sound, along with many other tube and transformer riddled circuits, tape saturation, wobble, noise, track bleed, crosstalk, and on and on and on. Last I checked Fairchild compressor itself has 10 tubes and, what, 6 or 7 transformers?

There's no mythology that the EMI console and the processing units used sounded really nice to a lot of people. Full of transformers, full of tubes, full of character. It's easily recognizable. How on earth was this a limitation??

Software developers have tried, come somewhat close, but in my opinion have failed to model that stuff in plugin form.

Without 'dirt' in general, artifacts, distortion, and the barrel loads of compression/limiting, how tolerable would mixes be when you turn the volume knob up? The slow speed of older euqipment, that was just unbearable on all the old classic records right?

I would absolutely love to hear a re-recording of The Beatles with just virtual mics, flat frequency preamps, and no processing. Zero. Not even limiting. See what you get out the other end. No editing either. No overdubs. You'd find out pretty damn quick it'd be like 100 CFL light bulbs shining in yours, and your date's face just as you're about to have your first kiss. Too revealing, very uncomfortable. Who really needs 4K video either? The news anchor looked fine in 640x480. Hendrix did fine with a Strat and dirty pedals. Hitting tape, that was just unbearably bad sounding stuff wasn't it? :p

There's no mythology to this stuff. If someone here bought all the Andrew Scheps gear that's for sale, they wouldn't be Andrew but they would be very hard pressed to make bad sounding audio through it. They wouldn't automatically become a great engineer, or have great songs, or interesting whatever, but no one can really argue the equipment he invested in is by in large very good stuff. Exceptional really.

But it's riddled with imperfection, and inefficient power/high running costs... and oh yeah, functionality. Function and sound, objectivity and creative subjectivity go hand in hand. If I said I was nervous, which I'm not right now, but if I was, how would you prove that I felt that way? If someone cried because a vinyl record remind him/her of their parents, or their childhood/wildhood, how would you prove it? If someone who plays bass says they can feel the instrument in their chest while playing it, how would you prove it? If a piece of audio/music is a little on the vague or "cloudy" side in the way it's produced, it's usually a little more nostalgic and reminiscent of a memory. We don't need all the detail to feel something. That's why people like the stuff, it's not some mystery or myth. If something brings back the energy they felt in the room or how they remember feeling it at a point in time, why not accept that? Feel honoured even that people cherish the handy work and craftsmanship.

I think you just like to get a debate going... and I suppose that's fine but what are you trying to convince us all of? JR considers digital summing/combining objectively superior, and that too is an opinion.

numbers, specs, not opinion.

Quote

It is subjective to say linearity means it's better. The whole premise of better, is subjective. What does it mean to be better? What's the context, what are the properties of better? Who decided/decides on those properties? I can't for the life of me figure out what the argument/constant discussion is about..

Digital everything is sharp, clean, and uncomfortable in my opinion. It's lacking in nearly every way, in my opinion - except that is does have some good properties too, that can't be denied. Transformers however "transparent" or "coloured" always do something to the audio. Paired with the fancy circuits designers came up with, and both start to do more to the audio in quite interesting and interactive ways. Why fight against what happens naturally and what the vast majority of people say they like??

Go ahead, mock these factless opinions. ps. I'm giving you this line on a platter so you can quote it and be as clever as ever in refuting what I'm saying.

The question over whether analog mix buses were obsolete came up in another thread recently. And then user Newmarket came along and posed the question whether that's really true. No one replied. Well, does anyone really need to say if they're still valid? If they do, I'll answer, it's a YES -they are still valid. If all this stuff wasn't valid you could just shut Group DIY down permanently.

Transformers, dirty gain blocks, slow releases, all this "mythology" is all still valid.

Do I think a Fairchild compressor is worth over 30,000 pounds? In no way, shape or form do I think it's worth that kind of money. But it is a beautiful thing what it does to the audio signal. Is this overpricing at the heart of where you guys are coming from? Thinking it's just over hyped and over priced? I can't argue about that, really. But I mean, look how much Slate hypes his ultra flat virtual mic collection and plugins.

Would I buy Andrew's gear if I could afford it? I'd have to think about it, but I would be unlikely to buy it even if I could afford it. I would be tempted though, and put a facility on the ocean's edge, in a remote location for tracking/mixing. I don't think it's necessary to own all that analog kit, it just isn't necessary for most people in most situations. But I do think it's great sounding equipment. Transformers are a big part of it, but as I said in other threads, and as you well know, it's a very complex interaction of a lot of parts.. not just transformers.

Adam

If it sounds good to you it is good for you... I still do not argue with people about what they say they hear, or prefer.

I've spent the better part of a decade making a small-ish format SS console with transformers; partly for the ergonomics/ tactile aspect of mixing, but also for whatever positive adjective one would use to describe an analog console that is chock full of iron. I really hope it has not been a wasted effort, soundwise.

Zeitgeist of the times. The gear is the gear that was available. It’s magic dust for a magical time period. As Lennon said the flag on the front of the ship may have been the Beatles but the Beatles were on the same ship that everybody else was sailing to the same fantasy island. Music influences other music. In the 60s I would hear Jimi Hendrix, Patsy Cline, and James Brown one song after the other on the same station. Today’s radio is an ancient relic of that time. And it’s segregated for audience marketing. It’s not a shotgun approach.

I love old gear and the sound of it but trying to find magic tubes like telefunken, valvo , Mullard, Amperex is damn near impossible in any quality. An LS or HA UTC transformer is a bidding war and it’s all good but bands move on and I realize I was listening to recording going to tape , to LP, to cassette and then to my car where a bag of pot and my youth made it sound so great in my memory. The topend of guitars were mellowed by the rolloff of the tape and sweetened

Adam I love the passion you have and the quest your on. I’m running out of gas and hearing and glad somebody keeps that passion going.

Production is the enemy of spontaneity. Whatever motivates the recording is ok with me weather it’s the producer, engineer or performer. I find song writing and performance is what makes the gear sound so good.

PS. Is it the chicken or the egg. When the headphones sound great to the performer , the performance rises up. Nice mic , nice pre, nice comp, nice eq, nice voice. Out comes emotion with meaning.